January 03, 2016

(Note to readers: I contacted Kai Ruhsert after he expertly debunked the outrageous distortions of the "historian" Dr.Werner Rügemer's presentation at the forum sponsored by NachDenkSeiten in Pleisweiler-Oberhofen last May (see my post). Subsequently, Kai performed an equally thorough analysis of Daniele Ganser's presentation on the 9/11 Terror Attacks. This analysis was presented to Albrecht Müller at NachDenkSeiten who refused to publish it. I agreed to translate the report into English and publish it here. We do hope to find a outlet in Germany to publish this analysis in its original form for a wider audience.

The work of Dr. Daniele Ganser is (thankfully) not well known here in the US.

What follows is an introduction by Kai Ruhsert and then his analysis of Ganser's presentation.)

The New NachDenkSeiten: Clicks instead of Quality

by Kai Ruhsert

The NachDenkSeiten was once an institution known for its commitment to truth and sticking to the facts. If mistakes were made you could be sure they would be corrected the following day.

In 2011 I ended my regular collaboration with NachDenkSeiten after six interesting years.In October 2015 Wolfgang Lieb announced his departure from the editorial team. Among his reasons for leaving he wrote the following: “In my opinion when pieces are published on NachDenkSeiten the processing of information and the nuanced representation of reality should take precedence over the political analysis or advancing one’s own worldview. Nuance and precise observation are important prerequisites for gaining credibility and convincing the readers."

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer articles published in NDS are distinguished by “nuance and precise observation.” The power structure of the editorial team has shifted so that facts have become secondary; it’s okay to feed in to the readers’ resentments if the result is increased traffic to the site. Based on the timing (before or after Lieb’s departure) of the different reactions to criticism of authors close to NachDenkSeiten no other explanation seems to be possible.

When Werner Rügemer spoke all kinds of nonsense at the 24th Pleisweiler Conference it was still possible to persuade the editorial team to publish a critique of Rügemer’s lecture.But now the NachDenkSeiten is no longer willing to publish any corrections.

Thus Dr. Daniele Ganser is allowed to state – without being challenged - that the collapse of the third tower WTC7 in the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York is still „unexplained“ .Does Ganser have any new knowledge of the event? Has he done any original research on the topic? Hardly: what Ganser says about WTC7 is nothing more than a cleverly packaged rehash of banal conspiracy theories. My detailed analysis of how Ganser misleads his audience by systematically withholding facts was presented to NachDenkSeiten – which calls itself „The Critical Website“ – for publication. But it was refused.

Dr. Daniele Ganser, the Swiss historian, Energy- and Peace-Researcher and head of the Swiss Institute for Peace and Energy Research (SIPER), is involved in such important topics as exposing war propaganda and analyzing how violence escalates. So it is all the more disappointing that he plays loose with the truth in his speeches. At an event on December 15, 2014 in Tubingen Dr. Ganser gave the audience misleading information concerning the collapse of a building at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. The WCT-7 was a tower that collapsed – but, in contrast to the Twin Towers, not as a result of an airplane crashing into it. In the official reports the collapse was the result of a fire. Ganser attempts to cast doubt on this analysis without, however, committing to any alternative explanation. But in doing so he uses highly questionable methods:

· To start with he spends a great deal of time asking why the collapse of WTC-7 is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The audience is made to feel that this is the first clue that something is not right.· In his presentation Ganser shows clips from a video where the WTC-7 collapses in a completely symmetrical way. This doesn’t conform with the report by the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) which maintained that the collapse started at the building’s eastern side. Ganser gives the audience the impression that the report on the building’s collapse is false on some essential aspects. · Ganser persists in making the assertion that the owner of WTC-7 recommended that the building be blown up. · Ganser shows a video where a number of supposed experts insist that fire alone cannot collapse a steel-framed structure.

All of Ganser’s assertions are demonstrably false.· He makes a big deal out of a small mistake by the BBC in order to fuel suspicion that the media is deliberately trying to manipulate the information.

This “theory” turns out to be completely absurd.

What follows is a transcript of Ganser’s presentation that deals specifically with WTC-7. My comments are in blue type and indented. The text begins at 56:06 of the presentation.

Ganser: “So how do we get at the heart of the matter? We just have to take a look at the buildings. And we have the official explanation. An airplane flew into the North Tower and it collapses. An airplane flew into the South Tower and it collapses. That’s 9/11 for almost everybody. Airplane, airplane; tower, tower. That’s it. That’s 9/11. In the background there’s a third building that also collapsed on this day – the World Trade Center 7, but no airplane flew into it. That means: Airplane, airplane; Tower, tower, Tower.”[audience laughs]“Well, that’s just a detail. Three towers, two airplanes. Yes, just a small difference that we have to deal with. And it’s not that easy. That the building collapsed is known.”[In the background the WTC7 building is projected]

"That is the building. It collapses at 5:20 PM. And those of us doing research had to wait until 2004 when the report of the 9/11 Commission was published.“

[Ganser doesn’t explain why he was supposedly waiting for a report that was not intended to have the information he was looking for. The 9/11 Commission Report doesn’t deal with technical details (such as the exact sequence of a collapsing tower), but rather with the complete organization and sequence of the terrorist attacks: "The ... 9-11 Commission ... is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." In the view of the 9-11 Commission the collapse of WTC-7 was by comparison relatively unimportant collateral damage in which no one was injured or killed. The fact that the event is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report doesn’t mean anything at all.

Ganser has been involved in investigating Sept. 11, 2001 for a number of years. It is highly unlikely that he really is not aware about which documents contain what information.]

"It was President Bush who published it; with his hand over his heart he said: "It's the truth." Of course, that made us somewhat skeptical.

[audience laughs]

"...and we carefully read it and then asked what the explanation was for the collapse of the third building where no airplane was involved. And the solution was quite elegant: the building isn’t mentioned at all."

[With the statement that the 9/11 Commission chose „an elegant solution“ Ganser is accusing it of deliberately not telling the whole truth. To justify this charge he has to resort to a trick and turn to the wrong document to search for the supposedly missing information. The trick works because the audience doesn’t know that the collapse of the Twin Towers is just mentioned and not „explained“ in the 9/11 Commission Report. As mentioned, the technical analysis is found in the reports of the NIST.]

[audience laughs]

"It’s not even mentioned. That means that there is a glaring mistake in the official report on the terrorist attacks. A building is missing. And that can’t be! You can’t just say „I’m having a hard day, two or three buildings....“

[audience laughs]

"Yeah, No. No. Think about it. We’re having a good laugh, but you have to understand: That’s the reason the Bundewehr was sent to Afghanistan. Don’t you get it? And what about the media that you watch every day? Can I ask a question? Who in this room understands now that this third building collapsed? Which of you hadn’t heard anything about this? Okay. Back than I was at the ETH in Zurich and I spoke with some structural engineers, and they said: "In my opinion the building WTC-7 was in all likelihood expertly blown up." And I said: That’s not good. There were no explosives on 9/11. And they said; „Oh yes, there was no airplane involved, right? Are you sure?“ And I said: Yes, there was no airplane. And they said to me: „Take a look at the corners. This corner, this corner, this corner and then this movement.“

[Ganser points to the corners of the WTC-7 building]

"I’m going back and forth, it wasn’t like that, but those are the decisive seconds of 9/11, and this keeps perplexing researchers. Because either it was an explosion or a fire. These are the only two possibilities. And the longer you think about it, the more difficult it gets.“

[In fact, the longer you think about it the answer is quite easy. No explosive material has ever been invented that doesn’t create the sound of an explosion. But no sound that even comes close to the sound of an explosion is heard on any of the videos of the event. For this reason alone one can rule out an explosion as the cause of the collapse. And it’s wrong to say that „this keeps perplexing the researchers“. The number of scientists who harbor any doubts is insignificant.]

"I asked a second structural engineer and he also told me: Blown up. He said: there are eighty straight steel columns, and for a building to some down so symmetrically they need to be removed all at once.“

[Ganser most likely had shown the two structural engineers the same misleading images and photos that he showed the audience in Tubingen. He always limits himself to a few carefully-chosen video clips.]

[The audience is led to believe that the building came down symmetrically.]

Ganser deliberately doesn’t show the first few seconds of the collapse which shows just the opposite, (for example at minute 2:10 of this video). One can clearly see how at first the penthouse on the roof of the building on the east side collapses.

(David's note: Could not embed video in Typepad, but it can be accessed here.)

[A view of the roof makes clear how significant this partial collapse is for the whole building:']

[From minute 3.25 of this Video one can see the windows popping out on the east side of the building. This is due to collapsing floors of each storey. Initially the building’s core – which comprised the greatest mass – began to collapse progressively from east to west. The facade, supported by steel columns, momentarily remained upright.

These observations conform to the findings of the NIST report:

* Sufficient breakdown of the connections and/or beams resulted in loss of lateral support and buckling of at least one of the critical columns supporting the large-span floor bay on the eastern side of the building on or below floor 13. This was the initiating event of the collapse.

* The initial local failure progressed upward to the east penthouse. As the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, the interior structure below the east penthouse collapsed into WTC 7.

* Triggered by damage due to falling debris and loss of lateral support to interior columns, the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been weakened by fires. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure.

Ganser’s contention that the WTC-7 collapsed symmetrically applies only to the facade after the building’s core had already been destroyed. Therefore all of the conclusions drawn from the supposed symmetric collapse are erroneous.

How could Ganser after all these years not be completely informed about the sequence of the collapse?]

"The other story here is that the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein, said in his own words: We had to pull it: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."Concerning WTC-7 he said. "To pull it" which translates as "to blow it up". Silverstein later said that he actually meant "to pull the firemen out" .”

"The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7. He said: “...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'” Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”or was he saying, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?Be honest, CTs. Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?"

Could it really be possible that no one has pointed out to Ganser the actual context of Silverstein’s expression „to pull“?]

“The fact is, with respect to 9/11 eveyone is challenged to think for one’s self. The second story: It was either an explosion or a fire.And I’m not in a position to solve this for you. It really was either an explosion or a fire, but be aware that your entire worldview depends on this question. It’s not a small thing. ...In 2008 the NIST study - the National Institute for Standards and Technology - appeared, and they said that it was fire that led to the building’s collapse. It was not blown up. Okay, but we should take into account that the NIST is a government department. And if they had said it was blown up they would have had to explain that to the government. And that would lead into a labyrinth of questions. Fire, explosion, fire, explosion, I’d like to leave this for you to ponder. Fire, explosion, fire, explosion . Think about it: This is the building with steel columns. Column 79, there are a total of 81 steel columns, according to the NIST the fire destabilized column 79, and that resulted in the building’s collapse.”

[laughter and applause]

[The audience is astonished: "Just one of 81 columns was destabilized that then the entire tower symetrically collapses?!"But the facts do not justify the laughter. It’s just a lack of knowledge, as the following graphic from the NIST Report shows.

(Click on the graphic to enlarge)

Ganser is silent concerning how essential the columns 79 to 81 were for the stability of the building: "From the 7th floor to the 47th floor, WTC 7 was supported by 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns (numbered 1 through 57, plus 14A, which was located near the south end of the west face) (Figure 1–5). Twenty-one of the interior columns (numbered 58 through 78) formed a rectangular building core, which was offset toward the west of the building. The remaining three interior columns (79, 80, and 81) were particularly large, as they provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building." (Quote from the provisional NIST Report from August 2008. The emphasis in bold type was added.)

The columns could bear the weight as long as they were prevented from buckling to one side. They needed to be horizontally fixed in regular intervals for the entire height of the building. The failure of the side girders due to heat damage had catastrophic consequences: "The floor failures left Column 79 laterally unsupported and it buckled, which was quickly followed by the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7, not the floor failures. If Column 79 had not buckled, due to a larger section or bracing, for instance, the floor failures would not have been sufficient to initiate a progression of failure that would result in global collapse." Source: NIST-Final Report.

But Ganser doesn’t just mislead the audience by leaving out crucial Information. He also spreads the rumor that the entire building collapsed in a free fall. (This question is important, because a free fall is physically impossible when some of the energy from the collapse is converted to destructive work.)This, too, is false as this quote from the NIST Report shows: "As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent."

Also this does not in any way contradict the analysis of videos which show that the collapse of the edifice accelerated for several seconds as if in a free fall. For there is a simple explanation for this: the video shows only the exterior facade. The collapse of the building’s interior had already begun several seconds earlier. On the way down the floors tore down the facade with them, so the collapse was like a free fall for a short time. The building’s core began to collapse while the edifice remained intact for several seconds; this is critical for understanding the entire progression of the collapse.

But the audience hears nothing about this from Ganser – can it really be because he doesn’t know any better?]

"You’ve never been any closer to what happened."

[audience laughs]

"But you’re on your own now. Then from now on you’re a conspiracy theorist when you start to ask what really happened. But I’ve spoken to a number of people: reinforced steel shouldn’t collapse in a fire.

[What follows is a video where several „experts“ insist that steel buildings cannot collapse in a fire, and this has never happened. But this is simply not true :

"Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure. ...As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire. ...Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen ...Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out."

A critical component of the NIST’s explanation for the the probable damage sequence is based on what was already observed in an earlier building fire:"One New York PlazaOn August 5, 1970, fire broke out on the 33rd floor of One New York Plaza, a 50 story office building in New York City (Powers 1970). Fire spread to the 34th floor and then to the 35th floor. Damage to the structural steel was reported on the 33rd 34th floors. The official report on the fire, conducted by The New York Board of Fire Underwriters (Powers 1970), stated, “Steel beams in the south corner and west center section of the 33rd floor were twisted or deflected several inches and the connecting bolts sheared off or failed allowing the beams in some sections to rest on the flange of the girder.” “Beams [on the 34th floor] were severely deflected and distorted and the most severe structural damage occurred in the west section of this floor.” While there were no floor collapses in this case, there were connection failures, and deflection and distortion of floor beams."

So fire damage on actual buildings resulted in connection failures. It is entirely plausible, then, to accept this as a basis for understanding the sequence of structural failures.

Is it possible that Ganser has no knowledge of this?}

"And not even in a free fall. Ant his is very, very controversial and just can’t be explained away. Don’t think for a minute that this will not interest people in ten years. On the contrary."..."If it’s really true – and I’m holding myself back because I’m just a Swiss historian – if it’s really true that an explosion took place at WTC-7 on 9/11, then we’ll have to rewrite the books.“

"... we’ll have to rewrite the books."

[That is Daniele Ganser’s real message and the audience believes him, even though not one of his arguments holds up under scrutiny.]

“ ... BBC World reported this event, Jane Stanley is the journalist, but they reported too soon. Yes, it’s true. They reported at 5PM and the building collapsed at 5:20. And that’s not good. Because we historians are very conservative. We have a rule. Namely, the event comes firts and then the report. When that is reversed we get suspicious.”

" We have a rule. Namely, the event comes first and then the report. When that is reversed we get suspicious.. "

[Ganser pays a high price for this little joke: He includes a completely senseless thesis in his presentation. Ganser lets the audience think that the destruction of the building was intentional and the BBC was informed shortly before the collapse took place.

This doesn’t make any sense at all:* Is this the way the public is informed? The reporters would have done so anyway after the collapse. * Or is someone concealing a mistake, an information leak, an unintentional indiscretion? This would mean that – except for this one detail – the entire buidling detonation operation could be kept secret. No participant has betrayed any information up to now. Nothing whatsoever is known to this day about the preparation or carrying out of a secret operation. The only evidence is that the BBC – alone among all news outlets – was given the news report 20 minutes too early? That is absurd.

And even for this apparent anomaly there is a plausible explanation. One just needs to look at the chronology of events: "As early as 11:30 a.m., FDNY found that there was no water supplied by the hydrant system to fight the fires that were visible. With the collapses of the towers fresh in their minds, there was concern that WTC 7 too might collapse, risking the lives of additional firefighters. Within the next two hours, serious discussions were underway regarding the cessation of any efforts to save WTC 7, and the final order to cease was given at about 2:30 p.m. The Con Edison substation was shut down at 4:33 p.m. (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 6)."So the collapse of WTC-7 came as no surprise: it was anticipated from 2:30 on. The media – including for example CNN – were informed.]

[The BBC responded to the criticism by referring to the reporting of other television news outlets which were broadcast at the same time (emphasis in bold letter added after the fact): "CNN's chronology of events published at the time confirms they reported the building on fire and a clip from a CNN bulletin, widely available on the web, hears from a reporter at about 4.15 pm EDT, 9.15pm in the UK, who says: "We're getting information that one of the other buildings... Building 7... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing... now we're told there is a fire there and that the building may collapse as well." Other American networks were broadcasting similar reports at this time ..."She emphasized: "If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... ""

One can assume that Ganser knows all of this.

According to his own admission, he places high demands on his work. About his doctoral examination he says: "... I took an oath: " ... I promise to always view the scientific research of truth as a serious and necessary task and to promote this goal, as long as it in my power to do so, and always to act responsibly, conscientiously and impartially in every scientific activity.“"

What Ganser says in his presentation on WCT-7 does not fulfill this promise.}